It's Mueller Time!

[protectionist]

Well maybe by 2024 some of them will be in jail. It sure won't happen before 2020.

Or there's always 2028

I've learned not to make predictions.

 

[protectionist]

 

[NotYourBody]

Well maybe by 2024 some of them will be in jail. It sure won't happen before 2020.

Or there's always 2028

I've learned not to make predictions.

It's a good life decision.

I tend to agree but I do feel that history will be very unkind to Trump and his administration. Way worse than Obama and even worse than Clinton. And I don't think he can rise above any of the recent GOP presidents. Not even Bush Jr.

As for Hillary - I think she'll be forgotten soon. She's too old. She was never president. She's not that important, imo.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

There was no underlying crime

there does not need to be an underlying crime according to the law itself.

the obstruction was attempting to interfere with an ongoing official investigation... the law is clear as day.

no crime on scooter libby or martha stewart's obstruction....

So, will the House impeach?

.

of course not! they are yellow belly cowards that put their own seats above their constitutional duty.... imho.

I agree

 

[ColonelAngus]

Well maybe by 2024 some of them will be in jail. It sure won't happen before 2020.

Or there's always 2028

I've learned not to make predictions.

It's a good life decision.

I tend to agree but I do feel that history will be very unkind to Trump and his administration. Way worse than Obama and even worse than Clinton. And I don't think he can rise above any of the recent GOP presidents. Not even Bush Jr.

As for Hillary - I think she'll be forgotten soon. She's too old. She was never president. She's not that important, imo.

Why specifically?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

No. It doesn't. There was nothing "iffy" even suggested.

They cannot indict a sitting president per the OLC rules. The DOJ rules also state that if you can't or won't indict, then you cannot accuse either. So even if Mueller knows he had Trump dead to rights, he cannot say so.

What you should infer, if anything, is that Trump was not exonerated on the obstruction question as he was on conspiracy. That indicates that there is indeed actionable evidence on obstruction whether Mueller says so or not.

So, we are in a position where Mueller is unable to either clear Trump or implicate him criminally. This is why they detailed all of the evidence regarding obstruction. The DOJ cannot act while Trump is president. So, either the congress will have to act or a prosecutor can take it up in 2021 if Trump is out.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

That has nothing to do with your allegation,dope.

Dipshit, all you do is give smileys and talk to yourself. It has everything to do with it. As a prosecutor there was NOTHING on Conspiracy and iffy at best on Obstruction and he wrote 400+ pages stating as such. Meanwhile he admitted that he spoke to everyone he asked to speak with sans the President himself. You hear what you want to hear. Thanks for the rep. Keep em coming.

That is simply not true. You don't have even a basic working understanding of this case.

There is nothing"iffy" about obstruction. Nowhere is it characterized in that way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How long will the House take to vote on impeachment?

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?

First, he

only in a leftist world. the real world of justice and american law, nope.

This whole thing, top to bottom, has taken HUGE SHIT on attorney-client privilege, and the entire legal profession in general.

The McGahn bullshit.

Raiding Cohen's office.

Special Counsel continuing to pursue an investigation KNOWING there is no underlying crime, in breach of a prosecutor's duty to justice.

This is what happens when people who think they are ORDAINED BY GOD to win an election GET BEAT.

.

There is no attorney client privilege extended to cover felonious activities. See crime- fraud exception.
Mcghan resigned because the president wanted him to obstruct justice.

 

[basquebromance]

"Democrats want Apocalypse Now, and they're getting Happy Feet. i almost feel sorry for them" - Gutfeld

"Hillary set up Trump...then she investigated him" - Watters

 

[lantern2814]

Another snowflake crying because Mueller failed you. You can STFU too jackass. Your lack of anything remotely intelligent or correct to say is noted.

I couldn't give two shits about Mueller. Trump is a shit stain on world of politics. And real estate for that matter. The fact you are supporting him via dissing Mueller speaks volumes about you. None of it good Cletus...

Like I care what an uneducated hillbilly like you thinks.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

No. It doesn't. There was nothing "iffy" even suggested.

They cannot indict a sitting president per the OLC rules. The DOJ rules also state that if you can't or won't indict, then you cannot accuse either. So even if Mueller knows he had Trump dead to rights, he cannot say so.

What you should infer, if anything, is that Trump was not exonerated on the obstruction question as he was on conspiracy. That indicates that there is indeed actionable evidence on obstruction whether Mueller says so or not.

So, we are in a position where Mueller is unable to either clear Trump or implicate him criminally. This is why they detailed all of the evidence regarding obstruction. The DOJ cannot act while Trump is president. So, either the congress will have to act or a prosecutor can take it up in 2021 if Trump is out.

Wow you’re stupid. He explicitly said in his statement that’s not why it happened. Wtf!?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

That has nothing to do with your allegation,dope.

Dipshit, all you do is give smileys and talk to yourself. It has everything to do with it. As a prosecutor there was NOTHING on Conspiracy and iffy at best on Obstruction and he wrote 400+ pages stating as such. Meanwhile he admitted that he spoke to everyone he asked to speak with sans the President himself. You hear what you want to hear. Thanks for the rep. Keep em coming.

That is simply not true. You don't have even a basic working understanding of this case.

There is nothing"iffy" about obstruction. Nowhere is it characterized in that way.

I don’t? LMAO. You’re making a fool out of yourself. If you believe we are all insane and you’re sane then guess what...you’re the insane one. Ben Shapiro agrees with me. Are you smarter than him too?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

No. It doesn't. There was nothing "iffy" even suggested.

They cannot indict a sitting president per the OLC rules. The DOJ rules also state that if you can't or won't indict, then you cannot accuse either. So even if Mueller knows he had Trump dead to rights, he cannot say so.

What you should infer, if anything, is that Trump was not exonerated on the obstruction question as he was on conspiracy. That indicates that there is indeed actionable evidence on obstruction whether Mueller says so or not.

So, we are in a position where Mueller is unable to either clear Trump or implicate him criminally. This is why they detailed all of the evidence regarding obstruction. The DOJ cannot act while Trump is president. So, either the congress will have to act or a prosecutor can take it up in 2021 if Trump is out.

Wow you’re stupid. He explicitly said in his statement that’s not why it happened. Wtf!?

You are daft and only proving my point about your understsnding of this case.

 

[basquebromance]

the Democrats want to find the truth and set it loose in the world!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

No. It doesn't. There was nothing "iffy" even suggested.

They cannot indict a sitting president per the OLC rules. The DOJ rules also state that if you can't or won't indict, then you cannot accuse either. So even if Mueller knows he had Trump dead to rights, he cannot say so.

What you should infer, if anything, is that Trump was not exonerated on the obstruction question as he was on conspiracy. That indicates that there is indeed actionable evidence on obstruction whether Mueller says so or not.

So, we are in a position where Mueller is unable to either clear Trump or implicate him criminally. This is why they detailed all of the evidence regarding obstruction. The DOJ cannot act while Trump is president. So, either the congress will have to act or a prosecutor can take it up in 2021 if Trump is out.

Wow you’re stupid. He explicitly said in his statement that’s not why it happened. Wtf!?

You are daft and only proving my point about your understsnding of this case.

Dumbass. He said we did not reach the determination that the President committed a crime. Is English your second language?

 

[basquebromance]

facts and the law. that's all that matters. not politics, not anything else!

 

[ColonelAngus]

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

No. It doesn't. There was nothing "iffy" even suggested.

They cannot indict a sitting president per the OLC rules. The DOJ rules also state that if you can't or won't indict, then you cannot accuse either. So even if Mueller knows he had Trump dead to rights, he cannot say so.

What you should infer, if anything, is that Trump was not exonerated on the obstruction question as he was on conspiracy. That indicates that there is indeed actionable evidence on obstruction whether Mueller says so or not.

So, we are in a position where Mueller is unable to either clear Trump or implicate him criminally. This is why they detailed all of the evidence regarding obstruction. The DOJ cannot act while Trump is president. So, either the congress will have to act or a prosecutor can take it up in 2021 if Trump is out.

Why did Mueller clear Trump of conspiracy?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Listen to episode 825 of the Ben Shapiro show. He is not a Trump guy and provides a fair analysis IMO.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

That has nothing to do with your allegation,dope.

Dipshit, all you do is give smileys and talk to yourself. It has everything to do with it. As a prosecutor there was NOTHING on Conspiracy and iffy at best on Obstruction and he wrote 400+ pages stating as such. Meanwhile he admitted that he spoke to everyone he asked to speak with sans the President himself. You hear what you want to hear. Thanks for the rep. Keep em coming.

That is simply not true. You don't have even a basic working understanding of this case.

There is nothing"iffy" about obstruction. Nowhere is it characterized in that way.

I don’t? LMAO. You’re making a fool out of yourself. If you believe we are all insane and you’re sane then guess what...you’re the insane one. Ben Shapiro agrees with me. Are you smarter than him too?

Who is Ben Shapiro?
I understand because I read the report way back when it came out.